/m/labor_relations

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

The players' current position is the natural default state of the competitive athlete, from which we must conclude that the previous, unnatural position was the result of brainwashing by the likes of Donald Fehr and Marvin Miller.

Once again I shall importune all Primates: RTFA. Fascinating article. Helpful short-course history of labor relations between the owners and the players (starting with Miller), a discussion of whether the new A-Rod suspension may represent a tipping point, and a number of fascinating quotes from current and former players.

The article is interesting, but it's filled with reaches and cherrypicking.

In the old narrative, players and their representatives routinely countered a failed test result with subterfuge, the possibility of impropriety or pride debunking the science -- a false positive, the overheated rhetoric that players were the victims of a media "witch hunt" or the response that there is nothing in a bottle that can help a player hit home runs.

In the "old narrative," the vast majority of players who tested positive did none of this.

As recently as 2006 and 2007, the players -- a total of more than 750 -- refused to cooperate en masse with the producers of the Mitchell Report, an investigation into the illegal use of steroids and other performance-enhancing substances in Major League Baseball.

I would guess players would still refuse to voluntarily rat out other players. As evidence, there are no players that are voluntarily ratting out other players. Taking shots at Ryan Braun after he's been suspended is not the same thing as ratting out your teammates to George Mitchell.

Unlike Palmeiro and, to varying degrees, Bonds and McGwire (who is working in the game as a hitting coach for the Dodgers), the sea change has left little room for sympathy for the Biogenesis 14.

I don't remember players defending Palmeiro after he tested positive. The one quote Bryant uses from David Wells seems to have been contradicted by this.

the change is the byproduct of several factors: increased competition for contracts in a crowded free-agent marketplace, anger that repeated offenses make it more difficult for the public to separate the clean from the dirty players and a growing recognition of the level of cheating in the game.

a) the FA marketplace is increasingly uncrowded not crowded.
b) what is this supposed to mean? Testing is supposed to separate the "dirty" from the "clean." If it can't do that, what's the point?
c) if the level of cheating is that high then how could there be a huge groundswell of players?

One player is quoted ######## about Melky's 2/$16 contract. Huh? That was post-PEDs and it's a lot less money than he'd have gotten if he hadn't gotten busted. The Melky 2/$16 contract is a statement by Toronto that they still think he's a good player without PEDs.

Nor is it clear if the players are fully cognizant of the unintended consequences that could arise if they give teams the power to void guaranteed contracts.

True dat. Explaining this being the Union's job.

Oakland's Bartolo Colon also made the players look inward. Colon was suspended for 50 games last season for testing positive for a banned substance. Without him, the A's lost a deciding fifth game of the American League Division Series to Detroit, a series they might've won had Colon not been suspended. Because the Yankees (the Tigers' opponent in the ALCS) were struggling last October, Colon's suspension might have cost Oakland a chance for its first World Series appearance in 22 years.

Colon was welcomed back by Oakland. Others on the ground would know better but I've not noticed any griping from his teammates. And he was named to the AS team this year.

And there was Manny Ramirez, caught twice for using PEDs, first in 2009 when he served a 50-game suspension while playing for the Los Angeles Dodgers, and then again in 2011, when he retired from the Tampa Bay Rays instead of sitting out a 100-game suspension.

Nitpicking but I've seen this not quite correct statement in two separate articles. Manny did retire rather than serve the 100-game suspension. He then came back the following year, his suspension was reduced to 50 games and he served it. He's now in the Rangers system.

during the height of the steroid era when the tainted Sammy Sosa, Miguel Tejada, Mark McGwire, Ramirez, Jason Giambi, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were winning,

And anybody who includes Sosa in that list has an agenda.

" My buddy Josh Hamilton had baseball taken away from him for three years and didn't take PEDs. Why can't we do that with steroids? You think the threat of a lifetime ban wouldn't change things? Where are we hung up?" (Jonny Gomes)

Per Wiki ... The Rays sent Hamilton for rehab after the 2002 season. In 2003, Hamilton "left the team and resurfaced several times" before taking off most of the 2003 season for "personal reasons." In 2004, he failed at least two test (rec drugs) and was suspended 30 games during which he apparently failed two more tests and was suspended for the season. Hamilton was arrested for smashing a windshield before the 2005 season and placed on the restricted list by his team. In 2006, he again failed a drug test and was suspended for the season. Nevertheless Hamilton was allowed to return to the minors in July 2006.

So Jonny, of all the time your buddy missed, only about half of it was actual suspension, the rest was either self-imposed or team-imposed. To earn those suspensions, he failed at least 5 drug tests and the suspensions were handed out in increasing order of severity. He was also arrested once and left the team a few times.

Then he got his life straightened out and became a productive ML player ... which would not have happened had he been banned for life.

"It's outlined in no uncertain terms every spring to every team: These are the rules," Phillies infielder Michael Young said. "Don't effing test positive. Everyone gets due process, but the idea of a level playing field is now a union mantra."

And nobody is seriously disagreeing with this. The debate is about the due process and the implications for future suspensions if MLB can buy testimony, "charge" multiple violations, operate under "best interests".

There are philosophical/scientific debates about what is a "level playing field" and the effectiveness of PEDs but they aren't germane to this case.

In the "old narrative," the vast majority of players who tested positive did none of this.

I agree with your general point but this is not entirely true. Then, as now, many/most players blamed their use on injuries. I'm not sure any of them ever copped to using it for standard performance enhancement other than Canseco. And there are many, including Aaron if I recall, who still claim it "won't help you hit ML pitching."

And anybody who includes Sosa in that list has an agenda.

OK, they could also just be sloppy with the facts.

While I suspect the article is mainly correct on its merits, it's not nearly as convincing as Eso would have you believe. I saw no statement about being "overwhelmed by the magnitude and unanimity" of player opinion and it quotes only a handful of players most of them being the ones who tweeted or made other public statements. I didn't notice any sources among the Union leadership but I may have missed that.

It's a good article, worth reading and provides a reasonable summary of one side of the story. But it does overplay its hand.

And speaking of the Union, their combativeness over this issue has been greatly overstated. Since the original JDA, they have never questioned the fairness of the program, never spoken up in defense of a suspended player. They defend those who go to appeal as is their duty. Meanwhile, as the article notes, the players have agreed to re-open the JDA three times outside of CBA negotiations -- which probably was a really bad idea from a precedent standpoint and nobody should be surprised if this offseason is the fourth time.

There was another factual error. The article claimed that Palmeiro didn't play another game after his suspension. He probably wishes he hadn't since he finished out his ML career with a 2-26.

Man, Walt...why is everything related to PEDs so goshdarn adversarial with you? You're treating this like it's a personal affront to your sense of propriety rather than an interesting documentary look at where the players themselves seem to be on PEDs right now.

One player is quoted ######## about Melky's 2/$16 contract. Huh? That was post-PEDs and it's a lot less money than he'd have gotten if he hadn't gotten busted. The Melky 2/$16 contract is a statement by Toronto that they still think he's a good player without PEDs.

The argument here seems pretty easy to understand for me: Toronto really had no idea whether Melky was "a good player without PEDs," as all they had to go on were several seasons of mediocrity plus a solid 2011 and one half-season of blinding dominance in San Francisco. They were hoping that the 2012 season wasn't JUST a steroid-created mirage...and seeing as how his current 88 OPS+ for 2013 is right back around his 2006-2010 range of 83-95 rather than his gaudy 121 in 2011 and 157 in 2012, they seem to have bet wrong. Absent that one PED-aided season (actually, although there's certainly no evidence to prove it, the numbers lead one to suspect he was juicing in 2011 as well), do you really think Melky would have gotten a 2/$16 contract? $8 million AAV? For a player who, prior to 2011-2012, was universally viewed as a 4th OF at best who was eating his way out of the league?

And anybody who includes Sosa in that list has an agenda.

Newsflash: almost everyone thinks Sammy Sosa was a juicer, inside and outside of baseball. I'd wager you are in a minority of something like <15% if you think he did not. You may be right. As a stickler for evidence and procedure I actually tend to fall on the "not proven" side myself simply out of an excess of caution. But the fact that any given player, fan, or sportswriter casually refers to Sosa as PED-user (unlike, say, Piazza or Bagwell) is not evidence of an "agenda." Maybe it's evidence of sloppy thinking, but it's not a personal attack or a disqualifying statement.

And nobody is seriously disagreeing with this. The debate is about the due process and the implications for future suspensions if MLB can buy testimony, "charge" multiple violations, operate under "best interests".

Did you actually RTFA? Not scan it, but read it closely? Because this is actually the author's point (as I pointed out above). He too is very concerned with this, and keeps sounding notes of caution throughout the piece. But this article is worthwhile because it for the first time puts some more meat on the bones of the contention that "attitudes have changed" amongst the majority of the players themselves. The truly fascinating subtext of this piece is that the author actually thinks the players' attitudes have changed too much -- that they are in danger of playing into the hands of ownership interests in the eternal battle of labor relations -- but even so he can't deny the seemingly unanimous flood of player sentiment here.

i think the commissioner is doing a brilliant job of exploiting the situation. he likely was not responsible for the wedge that seems to have been driven into the players as a group, but he certainly recognized and has seized the advantage.

Incidentally, I've pointed this out elsewhere but I might as well toss it in here: I completely agree with Howard Bryant (and likely 99% of the other posters here) that a "void the contract" penalty for steroids would be terrible, horrible, no-good idea that would inevitably backfire disastrously. I can't think of enough bad things to say about it, and if it ever gets seriously floated in CBA/JDA negotiations I hope Marvin Miller rises from his grave like an ownership-eating zombie to chastise the players for their foolishness.

Just to ask, does anyone know why ARod's suspension is so much larger than the others? I haven't found anything about that yet, but it's a big elephant of an issue. Perhaps I missed something earlier, but I don't know, and it seems wrong. Is it because he did something that the other accused did? Because he's paid more money than anyone else and the Yankees want out of the remainder of the contract (a popular conspiracy theory)? Or what? Without a good solid explanation, the conspiracy theorists have a case. - Brock Hanke

He too is very concerned with this, and keeps sounding notes of caution throughout the piece. But this article is fascinating because it for the first time puts some more meat on the bones of the contention that "attitudes have changed" amongst the majority of the players themselves.

They so obviously have. I paid very close attention to what every player, past and present, have had to say about this recently. The only one supporting the users so far has been Denny McLain. Yes, that Denny McLain. Sutcliffe, Schilling, Glanville, A. Boone Kruk etc, etc- all of them have just been crushing A-Rod. That should tell you something.

The quote above by the anonymous player grousing about having his union dues being used to support a cheater who had recently taken his roster spot is spot on.

i think the commissioner is doing a brilliant job of exploiting the situation. he likely was not responsible for the wedge that seems to have been driven into the players as a group, but he certainly recognized and has seized the advantage.

wonder why that doesn't get discussed more

I tend to agree and I think people are really underestimating (and under-reporting) the craftiness of Selig's PED strategy w/r/t labor relations. All the commentary (both here and in the MSM) treated Bud's decision to suspend A-Rod under the JDA and allow him to play as he appeals (instead of invoking the Best Interests clause to get him off the field) as a big loss and loss of face for Selig/MLB. My reaction is that those people don't seem to grasp the longer game that Selig is playing here. In fact, I've increasingly come to believe that Selig never really wanted to impose a lifetime ban or use the Best Interests clause, even if he could have gotten away with it: it was always a pose, a negotiating tactic. But the tactic was aimed not at Alex Rodriguez, but rather at the Player's Union and the players themselves. The act of withdrawing that 'nuclear option' can be sold (not to the union heads, who I doubt can be snowed like that, but to the players themselves and the player-reps) as Selig/MLB being "reasonable" and "respectful" of the MLBPA's rights and procedures.

Goodwill purchased on the cheap, by withdrawing a threat that Selig never really had any intention of carrying out in the first place.

i will just remind folks that one of the advantages of being really old is that you get LOTS of practice in things. bud has been in thousands of negotiations great and small. he has observed how the media responds to messaging. all of the dynamics of this current situation resemble other discussions from other times.

he doesn't need to do anything but sit in his office and remember. maybe he bounces things off one or two trusted individuals.

I think one sea change is that players are now openly calling PED users both "selfish" and "cheaters". This puts them on the same side of this schism as the league, sportswriters and most fans who care enough to voice an opinion on it (this site notwithstanding). It is also a necessary prerequisite towards cleaning up the sport because ultimately the players have to self-police themselves in this matter.

What would help more is if the teams that sign the PED guys suffered a little more. I don't know how, maybe large fines or draft picks or some other way to send a message to the GMs that you're not getting off scot free either.

PEDs were like this plague that swept over baseball and now seems to be receding, kind of like gambling in the 1910's.

What would help more is if the teams that sign the PED guys suffered a little more. I don't know how, maybe large fines or draft picks or some other way to send a message to the GMs that you're not getting off scot free either.

That would create a disincentive for teams to expose the PED use of a player if they discover it after he signs.

I'm not exactly sure how to put them on the hook as well. There's often a lot of money involved in these suspensions and you risk that driving the decisions rather than the general competitive welfare of the sport. Better just to give it back to the team and let them re-spend it.

PEDs were like this plague that swept over baseball and now seems to be receding, kind of like gambling in the 1910's.

I agree. IMO this has been the most tarnishing event on the sport in my lifetime. It will be nice when the worst of it is far away in the rear-view mirror.

Man, Walt...why is everything related to PEDs so goshdarn adversarial with you? You're treating this like it's a personal affront to your sense of propriety rather than an interesting documentary look at where the players themselves seem to be on PEDs right now.

I read the article. I said it is probably correct in its general tenor. I pointed out the places where it was wrong, logically questionable, debatable, etc. I thought that was the point of this site.

Seriously, I am probably the LEAST emotional guy around here when it comes to the roids debate. I just have a fondness for facts.

The author specifically cites Colon as an example that made the players look inward. He suggests great resentment that Colon may have cost his team a WS spot. (I didn't even bother to point out the obvious contradiction there.) Yet that statement is presented without evidence ... and the evidence we have is that he was re-signed and I'm not aware of any grumblings from his teammates (Shooty et al might know different). If his employer and his teammates aren't resentful then who is?

hey were hoping that the 2012 season wasn't JUST a steroid-created mirage...and seeing as how his current 88 OPS+ for 2013 is right back around his 2006-2010 range of 83-95 rather than his gaudy 121 in 2011 and 157 in 2012, they seem to have bet wrong. Absent that one PED-aided season (actually, although there's certainly no evidence to prove it, the numbers lead one to suspect he was juicing in 2011 as well), do you really think Melky would have gotten a 2/$16 contract? $8 million AAV? For a player who, prior to 2011-2012, was universally viewed as a 4th OF at best who was eating his way out of the league?

See Jeff Francoeur, Shane Victorino, Adam Lind, David Murphy, Nelson Cruz (I know), BJ Upton, Cody Ross, Jason Kubel. Drew Stubbs is getting $3M in his first arb year. No shortage of borderline starter, "overpaid" OF in the majors. The Giants, after Melky's one good year, were willing to go 1/$6.

Obviously there are follow-on effects from any player's presence and their contract but who did Melky steal money from? Certainly not from any other OF who put up good numbers in 2011-12. Does (to pick a name) Reed Johnson think he'd be sitting there with a 2/$10 contract if not for Melky? I'm doubtful.

I completely understand the idea that Melky may not be anywhere near as good as his 2011-12 numbers suggest. I've made the argument myself that Toronto should certainly place a lot of uncertainty around any projection. But then they certainly got a steep discount on the projected Melky and are paying him to be a borderline average OF. That might still be a bad decision but it's the sort of bad decision GMs make all the time.

Part of the point is that the issue here isn't Melky's punishment but that owners are happy to shell out money and give jobs to these guys (Colon and Melky). Unless Toronto thought Melky would continue to successffully cheat then their decision-making process was that Melky without roids is a player worth 2/$16. A 100-game suspension instead of 50 isn't going to change that. Or is the idea to say that not only do you forfeit your current salary and maybe any guaranteed money but that you can also only sign future contracts below $2.5 M per year?

We see it in the Meyer reaction. He lost out to Bastardo ... that sucks. He also would have lost out to my grandmother with those numbers. Bastardo may have taken a job from someone but not from Meyer (which Meyer seems to realize in the fuller quote).

Maybe it's evidence of sloppy thinking, but it's not a personal attack or a disqualifying statement.

If an author is writing a serious piece on roids but can't tell the difference between the admitted/proven and Sosa, then yes it is close to a disqualifying statement. If he had referred to Sosa as an alleged juicer or lumped him with Bagwell, Piazza et al then that would be one thing. He didn't, he lumped them with the GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY. He lumps Clemens in there too. You only do this if you are buying the public perception over the known facts or you are ignorant of the facts. Neither bodes well for a serious article ... and absolutely nothing is lost by dropping Sosa from that list.

But this article is worthwhile because it for the first time puts some more meat on the bones of the contention that "attitudes have changed" amongst the majority of the players themselves. The truly fascinating subtext of this piece is that the author actually thinks the players' attitudes have changed too much -- that they are in danger of playing into the hands of ownership interests in the eternal battle of labor relations -- but even so he can't deny the seemingly unanimous flood of player sentiment here.

An assessment with which I disagree. It adds little meat ... Schumaker, the 2nd bit from Longoria and a couple of unnamed sources are the only new quotes I believe. It resorts to the unwritten rule book. The "seemingly unanimous flood" is a half-dozen quotes. I don't see justification for your subtext claim either (which is not necessarily a bad thing).

From the article:

MLBPA sources say no formal discussions are underway to reshape the union's PED position or reopen the collective bargaining agreement to strengthen PED penalties. But an unintended byproduct of the opinions expressed by Schumaker and Scherzer could be additional pressure to back up the emotional rhetoric with policy.

So, no formal discussions (it's early yet) but the "unintended" (?) effect of two opinions "COULD be additional pressure." That's not a seemingly unanimous flood. And Bryant recognizes this as "emotional rhetoric".

It's a good article. It's the first mainstream one I think we've seen that has raised the logical tension between "throw the bums out" and its unintended consequences. You're just over-selling this "seemingly unanimous flood" angle.

Rodriguez's discipline under the Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program is based on his use and possession of numerous forms of prohibited performance-enhancing substances, including Testosterone and human Growth Hormone, over the course of multiple years. Rodriguez's discipline under the Basic Agreement is for attempting to cover-up his violations of the Program by engaging in a course of conduct intended to obstruct and frustrate the Office of the Commissioner's investigation.

They did not provide any specifics on the other suspensions but (a) possibly the others had violations in one season only vs. "multiple" for ARod -- i.e. maybe they are asking for more than 50 games for the JDA violation and (b) the cover-up allegation which they are trying to punish outside the JDA (presumably "best interests").

Just to ask, does anyone know why ARod's suspension is so much larger than the others?

Because everyone hates ARod and thinks he should make no more money in his career, so nobody will mind if they break all their own rules to try to void his contract. Then, the precedent will be set to try to void lots of other players' contracts down the line.

Part of the point is that the issue here isn't Melky's punishment but that owners are happy to shell out money and give jobs to these guys (Colon and Melky). Unless Toronto thought Melky would continue to successffully cheat then their decision-making process was that Melky without roids is a player worth 2/$16.

Yeah, I don't really understand the Melky point. Melky's 2/$16 contract was not what a 28-year old guy coming off two seasons of 4-5 WAR would typically get. Toronto took a flyer on him based on their evaluation of his potential PED-free production. Many people (here at least) thought the team was getting a steal, not that Melky was getting unjust rewards.

Goodwill purchased on the cheap, by withdrawing a threat that Selig never really had any intention of carrying out in the first place.

LOL. A handful of supportive player tweets doesn't mean the vast majority weren't shocked and angry that the commissioner felt he could abrogate their labor agreements any time he chose. Even clean players have to worry about false positives and guilt by association if there are no more limits to Seligs power.

Walt (#18) - Thanks for the info. I'd read the passage you quoted, and concluded the same thing you did - it was just a wee bit vague there. I didn't know that "cover-ups" were considered to be a separate suspension issue, but the list of people who covered up is certainly a hell of a lot longer than just ARod. I assume that BS will eventually issue a statement with more detail, but presumably not before ARod's appeal has been heard. What is good is to know that I hadn't missed a whole elephant in the discussion. I was afraid that someone would say, "It's right here (link). This issue has been discussed for the last three years. How could you have missed it?" That would have been embarrassing. - Brock

Walt (#18) - Thanks for the info. I'd read the passage you quoted, and concluded the same thing you did - it was just a wee bit vague there. I didn't know that "cover-ups" were considered to be a separate suspension issue, but the list of people who covered up is certainly a hell of a lot longer than just ARod.

Indeed.

MLB could theoretically suspend ARod under Section 7G of the JDA, which is basically a catch-all. Although 7G doesn't specifically mention obstruction. They could theoretically suspend him for obstruction under the CBA, but I find that to be more difficult than trying to suspend him under the JDA.

First, they've set a precedent with Melky, who attempted to avoid discipline by setting up a fake website to mislead MLB. Melky got precisely 0 extra games for that. Could ARod have done something so much worse than that, to the tune of an extra 160 games? Trying to purchase his medical records before MLB did? That's 160 games worse than the 0 Melky got for setting up a fake website?

As to the issue of discipline for obstruction in general. As I said in another thread, any masking agent, it would seem to me, amounts to obstruction, but yet under Section 3F3 this merely results in either a re-test or a designation of positive. And a player who deliberately doesn't take a test is penalized by a designation of positive. So, no extra games - and for the masking agent maybe even just a re-test. I am not seeing "massive suspension" as being sustainable for obstruction, particularly given the Melky situation.

engaging in a course of conduct intended to obstruct and frustrate the Office of the Commissioner's investigation.

Does anyone else find that hilarious? Oh no, he attempted to frustrate the commissioners office!? Bud would have been so stressed out!

I think the major difference between Melky and ARod is that ARod tried to destroy records of his PED usage, while Melky tried to set up an alibi. Functionally there's little difference so I agree with Ray that trying to distinguish between the two, especially on the order of 100+ games is stupid.

Also I've heard that Rod was also trying to destroy other people's records of steroid purchases, which would make him worse than Melky. I'm not sure if that's true or not.

i think the commissioner is doing a brilliant job of exploiting the situation. he likely was not responsible for the wedge that seems to have been driven into the players as a group, but he certainly recognized and has seized the advantage.

wonder why that doesn't get discussed more

Oh, I think he's definitely responsible for creating the wedge. Since the MLBPA has chosen to define its membership in a way that excludes minor leaguers, MLB was able to unilaterally impose a much stiffer testing system throughout the minors. Now the vast majority of present major leaguers have come up under that system. Few of these guys look at it as an invasion of privacy and an infringement of their rights, because they're used to it and many have bought into it.

I think money is a big issue in the change in player opinions. The gap between a AAA salary and a major league salary continues to grow. The gap between part time player money and everyday player money continues to grow. Baseball playing time is awarded based on a man to man contest. If one side of the man to man is using "assistance" then that could have a big financial cost to the non-user.

One other difference from 10 years ago is the profile of the users. Bonds, McGuire, Palmeiro, etc. were senior baseball players and a lot of more junior players didn't dare take them on. Now the two biggest guys caught this time, A-Rod and Braun, are guys who are not as respected and many more of the guys suspended are mid-level players who are competing for jobs. I think players get more upset with the marginal guys using than they do with the stars. The stars are going to get paid anyway, the marginal guys are taking money from other players.

An assessment with which I disagree. It adds little meat ... Schumaker, the 2nd bit from Longoria and a couple of unnamed sources are the only new quotes I believe. It resorts to the unwritten rule book. The "seemingly unanimous flood" is a half-dozen quotes. I don't see justification for your subtext claim either (which is not necessarily a bad thing).

Walt, did you notice this quote?

"I don't think it's going to be that big of a deal," one prominent National League player told me immediately following the announcement of the Braun suspension. "The massive majority of players want this. I don't think now that we want to get rid of cheaters, we're going to turn on each other. But to be honest, players are all just sick of this s---."

What would you require to be convinced that there's been a change in the perception of PEDs amongst the majority of the PA? Several reporters have made note of how frustrated the majority of players are, particularly when they're speaking off the record. At this point, isn't the likelihood that a generation of players who came of age during the BALCO scandals and Congressional Steroid Hearings have a more hawkish view of PED usage?

How many Latin players have commented on this subject? Would be especially relevant given that except for Braun the Biogenesis list is entirely Latino, all of them born outside the U.S. And the overall list of suspended players, both major and minor, tilts heavily Latino as well, doesn't it?

I think the major difference between Melky and ARod is that ARod tried to destroy records of his PED usage, while Melky tried to set up an alibi.

No, the major difference is that ARod (reportedly) was trying to keep MLB from finding out about his PED usage, while Melky was trying to defend himself after MLB had already found out about his PED usage via the failed test. Without the Biogenesis records MLB had no case against ARod; with the failed test MLB had a prima facie case against Melky under the JDA.

Is this true? It certainly seems to be true that the number of big signings is decreasing for all the aforementioned reasons (good young players being locked up being the most obvious) but is overall FA activity down, particularly among fringe or lower level players the article was speaking in reference to (i.e. the "I was beaten out by a steroid user" crowd)? A cursory glance at the FA tracker on ESPN.com seems to indicate the overall number of free agents to be relatively stable since the mid 2000s.

#31: That's the interesting question for me. How much does this divide down national lines? You hear grumbling from American players, how loud is the grumbling from, say, the Dominicans and Venezuelans?

Ray, do us a favor and change your handle or something. It's kind of disorienting to see an old and familiar name like "Ray" be associated with such sensible comments. The least you might do is start calling people you don't agree with "dishonest".

No, the major difference is that ARod (reportedly) was trying to keep MLB from finding out about his PED usage, while Melky was trying to defend himself after MLB had already found out about his PED usage via the failed test. Without the Biogenesis records MLB had no case against ARod; with the failed test MLB had a prima facie case against Melky under the JDA.

You still haven't explained why an arbitrator would care about this "distinction."

At any rate, there is an inherent structural problem with giving ARod an extra ~160 games for the obstruction issues, if that is the case (as I think you guessed it was in another thread). The JDA sets out specific penalties for specific violations; as we know, for example, use/possession under 7A is 50 games on a first offense and participating in sale/distribution under 7F is 80-100 games on a first offense.

There is the catch-all under 7G (or certain provisions of the CBA), but I think it is going to be extremely difficult for MLB to convince the arbitrator that something that is not spelled out in the JDA and thus not specifically bargained in advance warrants a massive suspension that is far beyond what the actual bargained for penalties are. Especially in light of the Melky and other situations. The catch-all of the JDA is absolutely not license to make something up that far exceeds the penalties set out in the JDA and far exceeds precedent -- nor is the CBA.

If ARod's obstruction issues are along the lines of Melky's -- and as I said it's hard to top setting up a fake website in an attempt to deceive MLB and avoid discipline, especially to the tune of 160 games vs. 0 games -- I see an arbitrator giving 0-10 games for that. If there's something more, maybe 10-25. Doubtful it'd be as high as 50, but maybe.

Ray, do us a favor and change your handle or something. It's kind of disorienting to see an old and familiar name like "Ray" be associated with such sensible comments. The least you might do is start calling people you don't agree with "dishonest".

(LOL) Now, Andy, he did change it...he dropped the (RDP) and that seems to have been a transformative moment. To make a more definitive determination, though, we'd have to institute a testing program for Primates that might shatter all records for "false positives." :-)

#38 I assumed it's another Ray of long standing. Specifically Ray K.

G-D it, Ron, you're right. It's as hard to tell which is which as it is which one of you is posting... :-)

As to why A-Rod's suspension is bigger than others--we must understand the full extent of the behind-the-scenes arm-twisting that BS and his legal flacks have been engaged in: there's clearly a pattern in the carpet WRT the progression of the press leaks. It's all about isolating A-Rod from the rest of the Biogenesis crew, and cynically whipping up as much media frenzy as possible to have him tried and convicted prior to the hearing. BS has been trying to orchestrate this scenario for more than a year, and apparently he has convinced himself that this high-stakes dice-roll to single out A-Rod is the necessary show of "moral force."

Howard Bryant is easily the best investigative reporter at ESPN (which probably isn't giving him enough credit, given the rest of the "straight journalism" contingent there), but I think Walt is 99% spot-on in terms of identifying the areas where he (Howard) is reaching for conclusions. I think the union is simply trying to get the Biogenesis mess over in a way that preserves their vision of detente with the owners, but they see a good chance to use the A-Rod hearing as the place to draw a line in the sand and limit the so-called "special powers" of the Commissioner's Office.

No idea who this other Ray is. He just signed on last week, so maybe he can add something distinguishing to his handle. I certainly don't want to be associated with comments that Andy deems "sensible."

Further to #39 remember that the Nicolau article notes that in order for an employer to be able to administer discipline beyond what's clearly spelled out they generally have to provide clear evidence of damage. It's very unclear that negotiations with Bosch about the possibility of purchasing the records falls into that category. I mean he didn't actually purchase the records, never mind attempt to destroy them.

Dunno. Maybe ARod was stupid enough to put in writing that he didn't need the records, proof of destruction (with no copies) would be good enough. Maybe that would be enough.

But I will note that one arbitrator (blanking on the case -- probably one of the Hoyt rulings) did say that since the consequences of a ruling against the player were so high he adopted the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt even though he didn't have to. I don't think that's an unusual stance for an arbitrator and would make it much less likely that MLB would be able to get a substantial penalty that hadn't been specifically bargained for.

As to why A-Rod's suspension is bigger than others--we must understand the full extent of the behind-the-scenes arm-twisting that BS and his legal flacks have been engaged in: there's clearly a pattern in the carpet WRT the progression of the press leaks. It's all about isolating A-Rod from the rest of the Biogenesis crew, and cynically whipping up as much media frenzy as possible to have him tried and convicted prior to the hearing. BS has been trying to orchestrate this scenario for more than a year, and apparently he has convinced himself that this high-stakes dice-roll to single out A-Rod is the necessary show of "moral force."

Right. We've heard next to nothing about the facts of the other 12 players.

A cursory glance at the FA tracker on ESPN.com seems to indicate the overall number of free agents to be relatively stable since the mid 2000s.

Squash, I think the difference in the FA market is in the quality of guys available. Teams today have enough money that they aren't forced to trade or release stars like they were ten years ago. The Yankees built a machine on a series of trades where they picked up expiring big contracts for prospects (Clemens, Knoblauch, Tino Martinez, Paul O'Neill, etc.) Increased revenues (and revenue sharing) mean every team can have a giant Mauer or Braun contract and still have cash on hand to field a team, so you can't just look at Stanton in MIA and assume that next winter George Steinbrenner will just whip out his comically large checkbook and fix left field once and for all. (Let's overlook the whole Tales From the Crypt aspect for the sake of this argument, but later on I think we can all agree it would be pretty cool.)

If the obstruction issues are so critically important, warrant such massive penalties, they should have been specifically bargained.

And the more I think about this, the more I come around to the view that the arbitrator, considering the whole of this situation (the CBA, the JDA, what was bargained for, what the penalty scheme is, what the precedent is, what Melky's conduct that netted him zero extra games was, how the other 12 BioG players were treated, what the principles at play are) is not going to be very moved by the obstruction issues. I mean, hell, it's not the least bit surprising that players who are using will try to keep MLB from finding out about that use. That's the whole point of the testing and the JDA. What's next? Punishing ARod because he didn't go on SportsCenter and confess that he was using?

Remember: the arbitrator isn't going to care that fans hate ARod, that the media does. He isn't going to care about whatever the hell Mike Lupica is hung up on. He's not going to care that Joe Sportswriter wants him suspended for life. He's going to base his decision on rational things. On the facts, on the law, on the rules, on precedent, etc.

Ray, do us a favor and change your handle or something. It's kind of disorienting to see an old and familiar name like "Ray" be associated with such sensible comments. The least you might do is start calling people you don't agree with "dishonest".

A lot of this CBA language is pretty old (2004?) and much has changed since it was put in place. Younger players have come up through a very aggressive minor league program, older guys from the Rollicking 90s have retired, it seems a bunch of guys are willing to accept the 50 days to gain the contracts and roster spots, and some crazy dudes are messing with investigations (web site, buying info, wtf?) so perhaps a review of things is in order. Mostly everyone agrees with that.

But I will note that one arbitrator (blanking on the case -- probably one of the Hoyt rulings) did say that since the consequences of a ruling against the player were so high he adopted the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt even though he didn't have to. I don't think that's an unusual stance for an arbitrator and would make it much less likely that MLB would be able to get a substantial penalty that hadn't been specifically bargained for.

It isn't unusual for arbitrators, where a CBA is silent, to impose Beyond a Reasonable Doubt burden of proof on the employer for terminations, but it is still a minority position. In discipline cases, most arbitrators apply a Preponderance standard for both the employer's claim and the union's defense. I don't have time today, but I'm going to try to pull some published non-baseball decisions authored by Fred Horowitz to see if he has opined on the issue before.

#51 Thanks again dlf. If he adopts a preponderance standard I think MLB has a chance of winning some additional penalty. No idea how big since ARod doesn't seem to have moved beyond contemplating obstruction.

A more general question. Is there some kind of standard duty to cooperate during a disciplinary process? Color me surprised if there is one.

A more general question. Is there some kind of standard duty to cooperate during a disciplinary process? Color me surprised if there is one.

Obviously I can't claim to have read every CBA in existence, but I've never come across such a provision. To the contrary, virtually all arbitrators published on the issue hold that there is a quasi right against compelled self-incriminatory statements during a investigation. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of times when a notice of intent to discipline has contained both a charge for the underlying conduct and a separate charge for lying during an investigation. That is an employee need not say anything during a disciplinary investigation, but if they answer, it must be truthful.

Without knowing anything about the evidence, I'm guessing that the "obstruction" assertions by MLB would be under a more broad "just cause" standard where the league has to establish the charged conduct plust establish that it was either against a cleary established workplace rule or is of such extreme nature that any reasonable person would have known that it was improper -- that is, an employer doesn't need to have an express policy prohibiting murdering a shop supervisor to be able to terminate someone who did so. I don't see any possibility of the clearly established rule, but depending on the evidence presented, could see an argument for the extreme behavior. What has been presented in the news articles I've read has been far too vague to opine.

As to the issue of discipline for obstruction in general. As I said in another thread, any masking agent, it would seem to me, amounts to obstruction, but yet under Section 3F3 this merely results in either a re-test or a designation of positive.

I know it would be hard to believe of a narcissist, but what if ARod had tried to obtain all of the Biogenesis records pertaining to all MLB players involved (or failed to specify that he wanted only his records)? Or maybe Bosch kept records of multiple players on the same files or sheets of paper (as some of the articles have indicated) and could not redact them to protect ARod without their wholesale destruction. Wouldn't that be a more serious form of obstruction than seeking just one's own records or using a masking agent on oneself?

ISTM that MLB might have evidence of some kind of action (even if inadvertent) like this on ARod's part.

Reads like the guy who wrote the great retrosheet parser and used be a part of the astrosdaily site.

Thanks!

Hey Ray K, how've you been doing? Haven't seen your name pop up much in recent years!

Great, thank you. I've spent quite a bit of time out of following baseball and have been slowly getting back into it. There's a nice minor-league park near where I live now so we've had some fun out there. I am really flattered that anyone recognized me after being away from the community for so long.

I know it would be hard to believe of a narcissist, but what if ARod had tried to obtain all of the Biogenesis records pertaining to all MLB players involved (or failed to specify that he wanted only his records)? Or maybe Bosch kept records of multiple players on the same files or sheets of paper (as some of the articles have indicated) and could not redact them to protect ARod without their wholesale destruction. Wouldn't that be a more serious form of obstruction than seeking just one's own records or using a masking agent on oneself?

Aside from potential discovery in their frivolous lawsuit, why does MLB have more of a right to these records than A-Rod?

Aside from potential discovery in their frivolous lawsuit, why does MLB have more of a right to these records than A-Rod?

They are both parties to the CBA. Obstructing an MLB investigation into multiple players (ie including players other than ARod) using banned substances would seem to be conduct detrimental to the best interests of baseball. IANAL but is it clear that such an offense is covered by the JDA? If it involves obtaining/destroying the records of other players, this would seem to distinguish the conduct from the Melky Cabrera fake website which was created by an employee of Cabrera's agent solely to exonerate Cabrera IIRC.

Isnt the story that ARod supposedly used PEDs in 2009, 2010 and 2011? That's at least three separate violations right there. The bit about conspiracy and buying evidence does have certain problems as alluded to above, so maybe that's just piling on by the Commr?

I agree that 211 games or whatever the number, is an arbitrary number and might get trimmed down by the Arbiter. Perhaps he would rule 150 games as that is 50 + 100, for two violations.

In my opinion I really dont see ARod prevailing in the long run. Presumably if the arbiter was to rule that ARod committed only two violations what is to stop the Comm'r from pursuing separate charges for 2009 or 2010 or whatever year? What is to stop them from bring multiple charges against ARod all winter long? Convict him three times before spring training and you've got him suspended for 300 games before the 2014 season starts...

I can see this going another round, but if the evidence is there, I doubt if ARod gets back on the field after this season is over.

They are both parties to the CBA. Obstructing an MLB investigation into multiple players (ie including players other than ARod) using banned substances would seem to be conduct detrimental to the best interests of baseball. IANAL but is it clear that such an offense is covered by the JDA?

There's nothing specific in the JDA that would cover this, as far as I can see. There is nothing addressing this under 7A-7F. It arguably falls under the catch-all of 7G: "A player may be subjected to disciplinary action for just cause by the commissioner for any player violation of Section 2 above not referenced in Sections 7A-7F above."

However, two things:

1. An arbitrator might go along with discipline for obstruction under 7G, but I highly doubt an arbitrator would go along with a massive suspension for it, for the reasons I've noted.

2. There's an argument that obstruction wouldn't fall under 7G either. 7G punishes for violations of Section 2. But Section 2 is simply a list of prohibited substances. Its preamble specifically refers to "using, possessing, selling, facilitating the sale of, distributing, or facilitating the distribution of" a prohibited substance. That doesn't cover obstruction, to me, or thwarting a MLB investigation, but I suppose it is arguable. I think an arbitrator would fall back on general principles of labor law and how obstruction is typically treated, as well as general provisions of the CBA and their precedent. And I think there could be punishment for this but as I said not a massive amount.

dlf: How is it typically handled when there is a discipline scheme set out (be it for drug testing or something else) and a player actively works to thwart the employer from investigating it? We know how it worked out for Melky: 0 extra games.

The full preamble of Section 2:

2. PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES

All Players shall be prohibited from using, possessing, selling, facilitating the sale of, distributing, or facilitating the distribution of any Drug of Abuse, Performance Enhancing Substance and/or Stimulant (collectively referred to as "Prohibited Substances."

dlf: Would ARod's team will have access to the facts/records with regard to the other Biogenesis players? I imagine so since there is a need to compare ARod's discipline to that of other employees, but I'm not certain of that. The JDA in sections 5 and 6 speaks to the keeping information confidential and away from the media and other clubs, but doesn't address whether it must be kept from other players who are or were similarly situated. Would it matter if the player did not contest the suspension vs. whether the player agreed to a deal?

In my opinion I really dont see ARod prevailing in the long run. Presumably if the arbiter was to rule that ARod committed only two violations what is to stop the Comm'r from pursuing separate charges for 2009 or 2010 or whatever year? What is to stop them from bring multiple charges against ARod all winter long? Convict him three times before spring training and you've got him suspended for 300 games before the 2014 season starts...

There is a long history of arbital decisions saying that an employer may not charge an employee for conduct predating the initial charge where that prior conduct either was known or should have been known if the employer conducted a reasonable investigation. I can't imagine a possible scenario that would allow MLB to recharge Rodriguez for 2009 or 2010 behavior after resolution of this pending grievance.

dlf: How is it typically handled when there is a discipline scheme set out (be it for drug testing or something else) and a player actively works to thwart the employer from investigating it?

I can't recall reading any published arbitration cases directly on the issue. As I wrote above, generally there is no requirement to speak to the company's investigator, but an employee cannot lie during the investigation. While I haven't read such a case, I can see an arbitraor who is presented with strong evidence extending that to the parallel situation where an employee is not required to assist the investigation, but can't actively hinder it.

dlf: Would ARod's team will have access to the facts/records with regard to the other Biogenesis players?

Rodriguez's "team" includes MLBPA and, health otherwise permitting, Michael Weiner himself, so clearly they have all that MLB shared with the suspended players. Further, unless there is an unusual discovery provision in the CBA, I suspect Rodriguez would be entitled to obtain anything MLB has on players who could reasonably be argued to be comparitors.

In my opinion I really dont see ARod prevailing in the long run. Presumably if the arbiter was to rule that ARod committed only two violations what is to stop the Comm'r from pursuing separate charges for 2009 or 2010 or whatever year? What is to stop them from bring multiple charges against ARod all winter long? Convict him three times before spring training and you've got him suspended for 300 games before the 2014 season starts...

Great, thank you. I've spent quite a bit of time out of following baseball and have been slowly getting back into it. There's a nice minor-league park near where I live now so we've had some fun out there. I am really flattered that anyone recognized me after being away from the community for so long.

#70 I think Joe is simply wrong here. While I've been distinctly less than impressed with Weiner's position through all of this it was completely predictable that he'd back ARod here.

He has a statutory duty to do so. And it looks like a pretty clear overreach by Selig. The kind of thing that anybody involved with a union will reflexively oppose.

Seconded. I don't put a whole lot of stock into public comments, especially when the guy in question is in the middle of negotiating a dozen plea deals. They tend to be pure PR, and if they are even tangentially related to the truth, then it's only by pure coincidence.

He also suggested to people on his side that there's no reason to suggest he should be treated differently than the others. To that, I say, that's laughable.

Padres young shortstop Everth Cabrera told a tearful story of taking one drug for a short time in one spring training at the suggestion of his former representative, Juan Carlos Nunez, the ex-ACES agent. Cabrera signed up for 50 games and took responsibility.

Rodriguez, word is, obtained steroids and HGH for part of 2010, and all of 2011 and '12. The evidence suggests he basically lived on the stuff.

Does he really deserve the same penalty as little, teary-eyed Everth Cabrera?

It seems like everyone who's been caught has only used a little bit for a short amount of time. What an amazing coincidence.

Amphetamines... then steroids... I look forward to the next generation of itsy-bitsy confessions. "I only implanted biohydraulic muscles once, but I didn't like the way they felt, and I had them taken out the next day."

No, the major difference is that ARod (reportedly) was trying to keep MLB from finding out about his PED usage, while Melky was trying to defend himself after MLB had already found out about his PED usage via the failed test.

There is a long history of arbital decisions saying that an employer may not charge an employee for conduct predating the initial charge where that prior conduct either was known or should have been known if the employer conducted a reasonable investigation.

well then I am confused. You are saying that MLB should have known ARod was taking banned PEDs through their testing procedures? Even if he was trying to mask these tests or do whatever?

#82 - Exactly. If they now have, or reasonably should have, evidence of improper actions from 2009, 2010, and 2011, they have to include all of it in the present notice of intent to discipline. Any that they do not include are waived.

Melky's acts occurred in the context of trying to explain away a violation of the JDA that had already been established. MLB had already met its burden of proof.

ARod's reported acts occurred in the context of trying to prevent MLB from establishing that a violation had occurred. MLB had not met its burden of proof.

Melky did nothing to interfere with MLB's determination that a violation of the JDA had occurred - because MLB already had what it needed. ARod reportedly did everything he could to interfere with MLB's determination that a violation of the JDA had occurred - because MLB didn't have what it needed. It's the difference between trying to explain away a crime already shown to have been committed, and preventing any evidence of the crime from coming to light in the first place.

Then he, and Biogenesis , would be breaking the law. Medical records are not for sale.

Aren't these Biogenesis records the business records of a drug dealer, not of a licensed medical doctor? Are there prescriptions, examinations etc by an MD employed by Biogenesis? If not, why are these records to be considered "medical records"?

Further, MLB is not "enforcing the law." It is acting to investigate alleged violations of the JDA. Obstruction of those investigations, whether by destruction of evidence, witness intimidation, etc by a member of the PA bound by the CBA and JDA would seem to be violations of same.

#82 - Exactly. If they now have, or reasonably should have, evidence of improper actions from 2009, 2010, and 2011, they have to include all of it in the present notice of intent to discipline. Any that they do not include are waived

that makes sense, but I thought what is going on right now with ARod has to do with his actions for these particular seasons? so they've lumped all these seasons together and come up with 211 games.

Aren't these Biogenesis records the business records of a drug dealer, not of a licensed medical doctor? Are there prescriptions, examinations etc by an MD employed by Biogenesis? If not, why are these records to be considered "medical records"?

You're arguing with Kevin. This *is* reasonable mode - he's the one who was excited at the prospect of Barry Bonds getting raped in prison, almost sexually so. He believes that MLB has a moral right to do absolutely anything it wants as long as it gets steroid users, who have zero rights whatsoever. It's the kind of authoritarianism he learned when he enlisted in the military in his mind.

#92 Moreover the website in question was actually set up. ARod appear to have merely opened negotiations on what could have led to the obstruction of the investigation.

Now I know that so far ARod and company have not chosen to frame Bosch's actions as blackmail. But it doesn't seem like a reach. Is MLB in any kind of legal jeopardy for cooperating with a blackmailer and enabling him to carry out his threats?

But if he's Kevin he's sure as hell modified his posting habits. For the better.

98-99% sure. I guess that there *could* be multiple posters in the DC area that enjoy playing and watching basketball, root for the Red Sox, have working knowledge of pharmaceuticals, an obsession about getting steroid users, and give random non-coke beverages in place of the "buy you a coke" meme. "Publius Publicola" flamed Nieporent 2 days after registering in a post indicating a good deal of prior knowledge of DMN and in fact, I emailed Jim at the time. Kevin was also in the habit of making new IDs between the time Kevin was banned and I stopped contributing to BTF on a day-to-day basis, so it would be completely in-character for Kevin to make yet another new handle.

If I had an easy way to get all of Publius's posts, I could probably move that 98-99% to 100%. Stuff like both having a tendency to be involved in all possible Pedroia v. Cano arguments can pile up, but I'd really like to get down and compare how the two use words and construct sentences. You can change tone, but drastically changing the *way* that you communicate is very difficult. And one thing I got a lot of experience with managing BTF day-to-day was ferreting out sockpuppets.

I guess that there *could* be multiple posters in the DC area that enjoy playing and watching basketball, root for the Red Sox, have working knowledge of pharmaceuticals, an obsession about getting steroid users, and give random non-coke beverages in place of the "buy you a coke" meme.

But if he's Kevin he's sure as hell modified his posting habits. For the better.

Seconded. If it is Kevin, good for him. I don't agree with "Publius" any more than I did with "Kevin", but "Kevin" made this place much worse and "Publius" doesn't come within a mile of that. Dan is the one derailing threads with meta stuff these days.

If they now have, or reasonably should have, evidence of improper actions from 2009, 2010, and 2011, they have to include all of it in the present notice of intent to discipline. Any that they do not include are waived

dlf (or anybody else): Is the arbitrator constrained to make a ruling between what the two parties are asking for (i.e., between 0 and 211 games in this case)? If MLB were to make the argument, "A-Rod used in 2009: violation 1; A-Rod used in 2010: violation 2; A-Rod used in 2011: violation 3. Under the terms of MLB drug policy, 3 violations can be punished by a lifetime ban. We only did 211 games as a courtesy to A-Rod." Could the arbitrator (theoretically - setting aside the likelihood of this actually happening) say, "I agree with MLB: this is 3 separate violations. I'm going to ban A-Rod for life."?

98-99% sure. I guess that there *could* be multiple posters in the DC area that enjoy playing and watching basketball, root for the Red Sox, have working knowledge of pharmaceuticals, an obsession about getting steroid users, and give random non-coke beverages in place of the "buy you a coke" meme. "Publius Publicola" flamed Nieporent 2 days after registering in a post indicating a good deal of prior knowledge of DMN and in fact, I emailed Jim at the time. Kevin was also in the habit of making new IDs between the time Kevin was banned and I stopped contributing to BTF on a day-to-day basis, so it would be completely in-character for Kevin to make yet another new handle.

If I had an easy way to get all of Publius's posts, I could probably move that 98-99% to 100%. Stuff like both having a tendency to be involved in all possible Pedroia v. Cano arguments can pile up, but I'd really like to get down and compare how the two use words and construct sentences. You can change tone, but drastically changing the *way* that you communicate is very difficult. And one thing I got a lot of experience with managing BTF day-to-day was ferreting out sockpuppets.

I find just the notion that somebody might be putting that much time into analyzing my posts rather terrifying...